Poverty!!!!

[Aim64C]

satisfaction makes poeple rich ,and greediness makes poeple poor

I'm not sure I follow the logic.

People can be satisfied and still be poor. For example, one of my friends is a very simple guy. He enjoys his MMOs and other such things and is perfectly fine with riding a bike to work. He's not exactly a career-motivated individual. So long as he is able to provide for his continued existence and his hobby of the month, he's pretty much content.

I'm not sure what you mean by "greediness makes people poor" - unless you are meaning that the greed of one person makes another individual poor.

To this, I have to say hogwash.

"Greed" insofar as the desire to have more is exactly what prompts a farmer to produce more food. The farmer wants a better house for his family to live in, and realizes that being able to produce more food - to expand his operation - is one such way for him to do that. In some cases, he might be producing more in an attempt to be able to under-cut the prices of his competitors. IE - he can offer more food for less on the bushel than his rivals (who have to charge more because they produce less with similar investment on their part).

In either case - the result is more food on the market. A higher supply with little change in demand generally means reduced prices, particularly on perishables. Everything from fresh produce to canned goods to meat products ends up reducing in price as the maintenance of cattle and other such farm animals goes down.

This means that food (cost of living) goes down, or that people are able to afford types of food (particularly meats) that were not available to them before - enabling better health, greater performance, and more individual productivity that can turn dividends on income in the future.

In this case - the farmers' "greed" benefited society. Generally speaking, even the people who he undercut in terms of prices are not likely in any danger. Their product gets sold to areas of the economy that would, otherwise, have not been able to afford the cost because the smaller supply of previous years was more quickly consumed.

So long as all of the involved parties are playing by the standard rules of contracts - greed is in no way even capable of causing poverty.

Even if we go with the case of the worker and the employer - an employer wants the maximum productivity (results) for the least expense (pay). Wages are one expense to a business. So, a 'greedy' employer wants the most effective employees for the least amount of pay.

On the other hand - let's take into account just the average employee. He or she knows roughly what it costs to live and can calculate this out. When they enter into wage agreements with the employer, they know that there is a point at which the pay is not worth the job - and that they need to look to another employer (or consider being an independent contractor).

At no point can the employer force the employee to accept a job.

Even the most greedy of employers ultimately begins to feel the lack of staff. At some point, he/she realizes that having the job filled is worth a higher price than what he has been offering the people who continually turn down the job offer. He is missing out on money he could be making if he'd just hire someone.

Further, in terms of quality of service - defective products, poor customer service, etc etc all contribute to overall customer satisfaction. Customers who are not satisfied are less likely to return for business. Greedy business owners have every reason to ensure that the people who spend money on their business have every reason to return and do so, again.

Thus, greed operates to improve the quality of products and services provided by the economy in an attempt to increase the appeal of the business to customers.

Thus far - greed has done nothing to harm the economy and is incapable of contributing to poverty.

There is one exception to this.

That is in the case of fraud - when one allows greed to provoke him/her into dishonesty.

The 'problem' is that no economic system can ever be completely free of the potential for fraud. Fraud is fraud - it is universally applicable to any human interaction. The question is what economic systems provide the best containment for fraud (IE - which ones are resilient against massive-scale fraud?).

[video=youtube;iFDe5kUUyT0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0[/video]

Generally speaking, the system that provides the most compartmentalization is a free market economy with a currency system based upon precious metals maintained by third party minting institutions owned by no government.

 

[Angelic.]

1-sometimes i think Poverty is a must...it's like a race....just like how its impossible for all runners to win the 1st place...its impossible for all families to be rich....there has to be poor and richs..

winners and lozers. just like madara said!1

 

[minamoto]

I'm not sure I follow the logic.

People can be satisfied and still be poor. For example, one of my friends is a very simple guy. He enjoys his MMOs and other such things and is perfectly fine with riding a bike to work. He's not exactly a career-motivated individual. So long as he is able to provide for his continued existence and his hobby of the month, he's pretty much content.

I'm not sure what you mean by "greediness makes people poor" - unless you are meaning that the greed of one person makes another individual poor.

To this, I have to say hogwash.

"Greed" insofar as the desire to have more is exactly what prompts a farmer to produce more food. The farmer wants a better house for his family to live in, and realizes that being able to produce more food - to expand his operation - is one such way for him to do that. In some cases, he might be producing more in an attempt to be able to under-cut the prices of his competitors. IE - he can offer more food for less on the bushel than his rivals (who have to charge more because they produce less with similar investment on their part).

In either case - the result is more food on the market. A higher supply with little change in demand generally means reduced prices, particularly on perishables. Everything from fresh produce to canned goods to meat products ends up reducing in price as the maintenance of cattle and other such farm animals goes down.

This means that food (cost of living) goes down, or that people are able to afford types of food (particularly meats) that were not available to them before - enabling better health, greater performance, and more individual productivity that can turn dividends on income in the future.

In this case - the farmers' "greed" benefited society. Generally speaking, even the people who he undercut in terms of prices are not likely in any danger. Their product gets sold to areas of the economy that would, otherwise, have not been able to afford the cost because the smaller supply of previous years was more quickly consumed.

So long as all of the involved parties are playing by the standard rules of contracts - greed is in no way even capable of causing poverty.

Even if we go with the case of the worker and the employer - an employer wants the maximum productivity (results) for the least expense (pay). Wages are one expense to a business. So, a 'greedy' employer wants the most effective employees for the least amount of pay.

On the other hand - let's take into account just the average employee. He or she knows roughly what it costs to live and can calculate this out. When they enter into wage agreements with the employer, they know that there is a point at which the pay is not worth the job - and that they need to look to another employer (or consider being an independent contractor).

At no point can the employer force the employee to accept a job.

Even the most greedy of employers ultimately begins to feel the lack of staff. At some point, he/she realizes that having the job filled is worth a higher price than what he has been offering the people who continually turn down the job offer. He is missing out on money he could be making if he'd just hire someone.

Further, in terms of quality of service - defective products, poor customer service, etc etc all contribute to overall customer satisfaction. Customers who are not satisfied are less likely to return for business. Greedy business owners have every reason to ensure that the people who spend money on their business have every reason to return and do so, again.

Thus, greed operates to improve the quality of products and services provided by the economy in an attempt to increase the appeal of the business to customers.

Thus far - greed has done nothing to harm the economy and is incapable of contributing to poverty.

There is one exception to this.

That is in the case of fraud - when one allows greed to provoke him/her into dishonesty.

The 'problem' is that no economic system can ever be completely free of the potential for fraud. Fraud is fraud - it is universally applicable to any human interaction. The question is what economic systems provide the best containment for fraud (IE - which ones are resilient against massive-scale fraud?).

[video=youtube;iFDe5kUUyT0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0[/video]

Generally speaking, the system that provides the most compartmentalization is a free market economy with a currency system based upon precious metals maintained by third party minting institutions owned by no government.

Dude i only read the last part..where you generally spoke :

1-you gave very detailed explanations that was over my head..(thx tho)

2-if im not wrong..your comment proposes economical solutions from gov standpoint ......but my thread asks what should poeple do to avoid poverty....

3- i think poverty is a wicked monster like the Juubi...and its fed by modern developments of societies and economicals systems...poverty is being created on purpose by a bunch of wicked poeple...

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

I think that saying is geared towards adults mostly. Which is partly true, if you're broke it's mostly your fault. But that's not always the case.

Also "amount of money" doesn't equal intelligence. Trust me, I know plenty of dumb rich men and women.

 

[Wabbit]

1-sometimes i think Poverty is a must...it's like a race....just like how its impossible for all runners to win the 1st place...its impossible for all families to be rich....there has to be poor and richs..

No. If it is a race at least not fair one. Not everybody can not be a millionaire but others do not need to be poor. As said before poor people are not poor because they don't deserve to be rich. Poverty shows that system is imperfect. People are starving not because we are not producing enough food but because of governments,poor food storage and distribution. If that race as you call it was fair then everybody would have got what they deserved.

 

[Tarinth]

Well the thing is, is that often, the poor that are struggling did have opportunities to have escaped
their poverty. While they might work hard, harder than some more privileged others, some of their
life decisions are what left them in the state that they are in.

Of course, not everybody is given the same opportunities, and some people are dealt a very bad hand.
But generally, at least in the U.S., everyone had some chance at succeeding. However, some maybe only
had one chance that they blew as a child by refusing to try at all in school or the like.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the quote, especially where with some people, their chances of success
were dramatically lessened and required more work than for those born into more privileged families, it is
generally true that the poor weren't given 'no chance' at all. They were just given very little.

 

[Yubel]

i------------> .


they say : "Poverty happens to poeple who aren't smart to avoid it"


your Opinion plz???

How does intelligence determine who gives birth to you?

 

[minamoto]

Well the thing is, is that often, the poor that are struggling did have opportunities to have escaped
their poverty. While they might work hard, harder than some more privileged others, some of their
life decisions are what left them in the state that they are in.

Of course, not everybody is given the same opportunities, and some people are dealt a very bad hand.
But generally, at least in the U.S., everyone had some chance at succeeding. However, some maybe only
had one chance that they blew as a child by refusing to try at all in school or the like.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the quote, especially where with some people, their chances of success
were dramatically lessened and required more work than for those born into more privileged families, it is
generally true that the poor weren't given 'no chance' at all. They were just given very little.

i respect your Opinion

 

[Aim64C]

Dude i only read the last part..where you generally spoke :

1-you gave very detailed explanations that was over my head..(thx tho)

When I was young and discussing things on forums, I took the opportunity to place terms and concepts that went over my head into search engines (back when Metacrawler was cool) to gain a better understanding.

2-if im not wrong..your comment proposes economical solutions from gov standpoint ......but my thread asks what should poeple do to avoid poverty....

The two are somewhat related.

For example, I am quite educated in the field of electronics and electrical engineering. I can build you a radar system if given the budget to purchase the parts. I'm talking every stage of the design - from the selection of processors to the design of the board to solder them on to the various other components necessary to translate the functions of the phased array to a digital system.

And program it.

True - it would be faster if I had a team, particularly people who were more experienced in the various subsystems, but I'm capable of engineering a radar system from the ground up.

Legally, I can't install a breaker box because I have not completed an apprentice program spanning a few years in order to obtain the legal license to 'safely' run wire in a home. Nor have I paid the fees necessary to obtain such a license (and the licenses are often required by city - so if I am licensed in one city, I am not able to travel to another city to do installations unless I apply for and pay for a license in those cities).

To say that I am overqualified to be an electrician is a bit of an understatement. In terms of what the job actually requires and the knowledge involved, I'm more than capable of being an electrician... especially compared to some of the guys I've encountered who are licensed. I could charge half of what they charge and make a very decent living for myself.

But the government arbitrarily prohibits me from doing so.

It isn't for your safety. They turn 16 year old kids loose with metal death machines known as automobiles all the time with little more than a test and a short skill demonstration. People are killed by the tens of thousands by automobile drivers.

Most people who die of electrical fires do so because they couldn't afford a professional electrician to come in and really fix the problem, so they rigged up their own solution that no electrician would have approved of, or because the cost of electrical work is large enough that people do not have regular inspections of old wiring or other such things - so age related failures finally spill over into a deadly scenario.

It could easily be argued that, in this case, the government regulations actually cause deaths and increased property damage by artificially limiting the labor pool and driving up costs.

Why? Because the labor unions lobbied for it.

Generally speaking, when a government sets down an economic policy, it is outlining how it is going to restrict the opportunities of some individuals to create privileged scenarios for others. Which is why the best economic policy for a government is to have absolutely no economic policy.

3- i think poverty is a wicked monster like the Juubi...and its fed by modern developments of societies and economicals systems...poverty is being created on purpose by a bunch of wicked poeple...

Yes, and no.

Just like in the example I gave, above, there are certainly situations where people will abuse power and authority in order to advance their own self-interest.

However, poverty has always existed in humanity. The default state of humanity is poverty. We are all born as little more than hunter-gatherers. The question is why some of us rise to affluence while others do not.

It is easy to take our society for granted. You and I were both born into a world where mankind has so completely mastered our environment that the overwhelming majority of human beings have never eaten a meal they have grown on their own. How many people, particularly from the city, can say they killed, cleaned, and cooked a chicken? A fish? How many have planted a garden to eat from it at any point later?

In many cases, we have absolutely no grasp of just how far we've come... and just how fragile that advancement is.

We think of food as being something that is a given, to the extent that many people consider it a right. The fact that they are eating food that was grown on the other side of the planet doesn't even dawn on these people. They've no idea what it means for crops to be in season and don't understand the amount of effort that went into providing the opportunity they are currently enjoying.

We are so used to living in an environment where we are in such a state of control as to never be in need and only rarely be in want that we've come to consider those who lack the ability to afford such an existence as being unnatural.

It is natural for people to not be able to live in an environment 30 degrees cooler than the outside air. It is natural for people to not be able to eat watermelon in January in the northern hemisphere. It is natural for people eat canned food through the winter and not have access to much fresh produce.

The ability to do otherwise is all built upon a very intricate network of producers, manufacturers, transporters, and retailers. These are very unnatural things that are all constructs of our human ambition. Or, rather, they are things that are the natural consequence of human ambition and enterprise.

When people do not have that ambition, or have no desire to participate in that enterprise - it is only natural that they not enjoy the fruits of that system.

Likewise, when a government or institution acts to impede human ambition and enterprise, it is natural that the fruits of that system will also suffer as a consequence.

Poverty is not something that is created.

Wealth is something that is created.

We are all born poor. We are all born with no skills, no knowledge, and no money. Some things in our life are not equal or fair. I had a very intelligent father who was in his 40s when he had me. Compared to kids born to much younger parents, I had a father with much more experience in the world, a much more established career, and with a much larger knowledge base when compared to my peers.

That isn't 'fair' or 'equal' - but neither is nature. Nothing about the world suggests life is going to be fair or equal. Further, it would be supremely arrogant to suggest there is something that the government can do about it.

A government can't give you the influence of my father. I grew up with a father who was not afraid of anything. When I said I could build you a radar system, it's not because I have training in building radar systems - it's because I know that I have the requisite knowledge to embark on the task an can research and apply what I don't yet know. Just as my father would have. The man had absolutely no fear in tackling an engineering problem and had a lot of confidence in his ability to solve said problem.

From such things as electronic circuit design to housing construction - the man would tackle it all.

It's given me a markedly different response to the world around me than my peers, who are often hesitant to do things themselves or who want to hire a professional for things I personally know are very simple and straight-forward tasks.

It's not something that can be provided by a law. It's not something that can be bought. It's not something you can teach a course on (well, you kind of can - but the mentality is one that comes from influence, not just knowledge).

It isn't fair. And if you asked me if I'd rather have a billionaire parent or my father - I'd say that my father gave me a hopelessly unfair advantage over the kid born to a billionaire. At the end of the day - who is the billionaire going to come to when he wants something done?

That is the difference between "Wealth" and "Capital."

No. If it is a race at least not fair one. Not everybody can not be a millionaire but others do not need to be poor. As said before poor people are not poor because they don't deserve to be rich. Poverty shows that system is imperfect. People are starving not because we are not producing enough food but because of governments,poor food storage and distribution. If that race as you call it was fair then everybody would have got what they deserved.

What, in nature, suggests to you that the world is fair?

What have you observed about humans that makes you believe there is something we can do to make the world fair?

Further, let's just hypothetically say that someone in the race receives hunger. Is there a situation in which their participation in the race warrants that return? IE - is it possible that someone deserves to be hungry?

 

[Karna]

Well poverty isn't just a monetary status, it's a state of mind. Some develop an inferiority factor and some develop a superiority factor cause of their birth, it's about what they think their worth to be that leads them to either work to become richer or just assume they don't deserve it and it ain't them. But to answer your question 'people who aren't smart enough to avoid it' is a false statement, I've seen many people who live in least comfortable of lifestyle but are 5 times more intelligent than many of the ignorants that plague the land, inferiority factor is their problem. In the end it's what you think about yourself which again is affected by a lot of other factors that decides whether you gonna be/stay poor or have lots of money. Things like basic intelligence and situation does have it's effects but in this world even an idiot can find followers if it is arrogant enough.

Also one advice would be never take these kinda one liners too seriously, they are usually glorified by stupid cause they need generalizations they can quote and feel like smart.

 

[Callypigia]

People born into middle and upper classes will always have an advantage over those born into poverty. But that does not mean people born into poverty can't become successful, or that people born into middle and upper classes will remain successful. If you are born into poverty and have low intelligence your chances to move yourself out of your social position is greatly hindered.

Of course wealth can be subjective. Possessions are empty wealth. Friends, family, and happiness are far more valuable; especially once a person's basic needs are met (i.e., food, shelter, basic security).

 

[Wabbit]

What, in nature, suggests to you that the world is fair?

What have you observed about humans that makes you believe there is something we can do to make the world fair?

World as in universe there is nothing fair and unfair about it. Natural events are not in our control. But humans can be fair to each other.

None.

Further, let's just hypothetically say that someone in the race receives hunger. Is there a situation in which their participation in the race warrants that return? IE - is it possible that someone deserves to be hungry?

It is more like people can not participate for some reason like they are are denied or there is no event taking place where they live. I am calling that unfair. Perhaps that thing can be avoided.

 

[minamoto]

People born into middle and upper classes will always have an advantage over those born into poverty. But that does not mean people born into poverty can't become successful, or that people born into middle and upper classes will remain successful. If you are born into poverty and have low intelligence your chances to move yourself out of your social position is greatly hindered.

Of course wealth can be subjective. Possessions are empty wealth. Friends, family, and happiness are far more valuable; especially once a person's basic needs are met (i.e., food, shelter, basic security).

i like your opinion becuz its speaks logic

 

[Aim64C]

World as in universe there is nothing fair and unfair about it. Natural events are not in our control. But humans can be fair to each other.

Then do you accept the concept of economics as natural or as human?

Or, rather, are humans not a part of nature?

It is more like people can not participate for some reason like they are are denied or there is no event taking place where they live. I am calling that unfair. Perhaps that thing can be avoided.

But at what cost should they be avoided?

The idea that making things 'fair' is 'better for everybody' is a popular one, but not necessarily one that stacks up with reality. All systems of monitoring and accountability have costs both financial and behavioral. When anti-discrimination legislation appeared and allowed minorities to file suit against their employers if they believed they were fired because of racism - hiring of said minorities dropped. If you fire a black person - you are many times more likely to catch a lawsuit (with or without grounds) than if you fire a white person.

This usually isn't much of a problem on the hiring side, as it is difficult to prove discrimination in hiring.

Things meant to make things 'fair' don't necessarily function as advertised, and rarely improve the situation.